People v. Strawn CA3

Filed 08/20/24 P. v. Strawn CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C099475

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. CRF1402847 & 14F2847) v.

JAMES EDWARD STRAWN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant James Edward Strawn appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing. His appellate counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and asks that we exercise our discretion to review the record for arguable issues on appeal. This court notified defendant he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief. Defendant filed a supplemental brief arguing the trial court erred in summarily denying his resentencing petition without appointing him counsel and without holding a hearing, because Penal Code sections 1172.1 and 1172.75 require a hearing and appointment of

1

counsel. Defendant further argues the trial court violated his constitutional rights because he was entitled to be present at any hearing. We disagree and affirm the trial court’s order denying the petition for resentencing. Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2014, a jury found defendant guilty of corporal injury to a spouse or cohabitation, torture, and felon in possession of a firearm. The jury also found a great bodily injury enhancement to be true. The trial court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of life in person plus a consecutive eight months, and we affirmed the judgment. (People v. Strawn (Aug. 22, 2017, C077917).) In 2018, the trial court modified the sentence to prison for life plus a consecutive two years. The court arrived at the two years by imposing the middle term of two years for the felon in possession of a firearm charge. In August 2023, defendant filed a pro per petition for resentencing, citing sections 1170, 1171, 1172, 1172.1, 1172.75, and requesting relief under Assembly Bill Nos. 124, 256, 333, 960, 1540 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), and Senate Bill Nos. 73, 81, 483, 567, 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.). The same month, the trial court summarily denied defendant’s petition, noting defendant failed to explain which code sections entitled him to relief and why. The trial court also explained that no sentencing adjustment applied to defendant’s case, and those that might in the future would require “some action by the Department of Corrections” prior to the trial court having jurisdiction to grant relief. Defendant timely appealed from the August 2023 order. DISCUSSION Where, as here, the defendant has been notified that his appeal may be dismissed pursuant to Delgadillo and he files a supplemental brief raising issues he wants considered, we evaluate the issues presented but need not independently review the